All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

Navigation

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to
use the classic discussion system instead. If you login, you can remember this preference.

Please Log In to Continue

I have to admit I don't like Mr. Shields all that much. I can handle a liberal bias, but his is extreme, and he often makes mistakes as a result (as you point out). I'm not sure if this is a recent thing for him or not. I've seen formerly respectable journalists go off the deep end before, e.g. Michael Kinsley.

As for there being no proof that Scooter Libby was acting on the behest of Dick Cheney, let's get real. Do you think Libby did this on his own volition? It wouldn't take much for me to get past reas

I have to admit I don't like Mr. Shields all that much. I can handle a liberal bias, but his is extreme, and he often makes mistakes as a result (as you point out). I'm not sure if this is a recent thing for him or not.

No, he's been like that a long time. I look forward to when Bill Kristol is on instead of David Brooks, because Kristol doesn't let him get away with it.

As for there being no proof that Scooter Libby was acting on the behest of Dick Cheney, let's get real. Do you think Libby did this on his own volition? It wouldn't take much for me to get past reasonable doubt.

What do you mean "acting"? He was talking to reporters about Wilson at the behest of Cheney, surely. Trying to discredit Wilson, at the behest of Cheney, surely. And Wilson deserved to be discredited, because Wilson was wrong.

But I see no evidence that Libby attempted to discredit Wilson by revealing Plame's identity, so why would I assume that Cheney directed Libby to do something that I can't even assume that Libby did?

We already know Bush and Cheney pesonally authorized Libby to reveal, to reporters, information from the Iraq NIE and information about Wilson personally. There is no evidence whatsoever that this authorization included information about Wilson's wife.

Go back to what Shields said: not that the Wilson Discrediting Project merely included revealing his wife's identity, but that the project was to reveal her identity, in order to discredit him. Not even Fitzgerald claims this.

In the indictment against Libby, he says Libby learned about Wilson's wife from a VP assistant for public affairs (obviously, her employment at the CIA was top secret!), and that in the Judith Miller interview, Libby mentioned basically in passing that he believed Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Libby later that day asked the VP's counsel what paperwork would be involved if a CIA employee's spouse took an overseas trip. A couple days later, Armitage told Libby that Armitage told Novak about Wilson's wife. A couple days after that, Matt Cooper asked Libby about Wilson's wife, and the same day, he again talked to Miller about Wilson's wife.

That's it. He told one person, basically in passing, about Wilson's wife. Three other people brought it up to him: the public affairs assistant, Armitage, and Cooper. Fitz later added that Cheney also told him about Wilson's wife. And he told ONE PERSON: Judith Miller (while confirming it also to Cooper, when asked).

Sorry, I not only do not see any evidence that Wilson's wife was part of a scheme by Rove or Cheney, but I also see no evidence that Libby made any concerted effort to make a big deal out of Wilson's wife, either.

Now, to be clear, Cooper says he got his information from Rove. But, Cooper said, Rove only told him in the context of being wary about what Wilson said, because his wife works for the CIA. Not as a means, as Wilson contends, to punish Wilson by outing his wife, but merely to say, "be wary of what he says."

As to "reasonable doubt," even Fitzgerald found nothing regarding any of this that was worthy of charges. I don't know what you mean by "reasonable doubt" here, since that is a criminal trial term, and there was and will be no criminal trial directly related to any of the events we're talking about.

The trial just concluded was about Libby's conduct during the investigation of those events. Which makes me wonder how the hell this jury could say "where's Rove?," and say "Libby is a fall guy," when there is no reason to suspect that Rove or Cheney or anyone else ever committed any crime that Libby would be a fall guy for. I honestly think the jury didn't understand the case before them, to say such things.

Then again, even on the merits of the case, I can't see how anyone could believe beyond reasonable doubt that Libby lied. To come to that conclusion, you have to believe there is no reasonable possibility that Libby may simply be remebering incorrectly, and that is itself unreasonable. One of the jurors said the jury "did not believe Libby could possibly have forgotten that the vice president had told him something that important." But why would Libby have found that to be important? I have been hearing about her identity for years now, and I have never thought it to be important.